16 ms·

> but these things happened and are happening not in the context of a cooperative community. They absolutely could be. A cooperative community full of racists

by stale2002 5y ago

> but these things happened and are happening not in the context of a cooperative community. They absolutely could be. A cooperative community full of racists might very well attempt to kick out people of certain races. > you have a status quo where other forces can also banish a person. Ah, see, but we don't have that status quo. Nobody can kick me out of my apartment, as long as I keep paying rent. And that paying rent part, isn't even strictly something that would get me kicked out, in certain places! There are tons of laws and rules and regulations that very much prevent people from being kicked out of places. > i don't get what you're getting at. What he was getting at, is that it should be obvious that just because a majority of people want someone kicked out, that this might not be a good reason to actually kick them out! EX: if a majority want to kick out certain races, we, as society, should prevent that majority from democratically excluding certain races. So, in other words the answer to the question of "why should you be allowed to live somewhere if the community wants you out?" is because we live in a society, and in that society we want to prevent racists from kicking people out of where they live, even if they kick them out democratically.

tmp538394722 5y ago
If I understand the point you’re trying to make - I appreciate it, but I wonder if you might be talking past each other. Just to be clear, consensus is intentionally very different from a simple majority system - the way that most of the historical racist systems have perpetuated. It’s certainly not impossible for these things to exist in a consensus based environment, but it’s a different beast.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > Just to be clear, consensus is intentionally very different from a simple majority system Ok call it a consensus then. We as a society, want to make laws, that prevent certain communities from enacting a "consensus" to kick out certain races from where they live.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > We as a society, want to make laws I'm definitely not convinced that laws can protect people from injustice. Rules can if they're consented by everyone (while laws are imposed by a minority of self-serving politicians). In some communes i know, an overtly racist person would not dare to join because there's already established people of color in the community and a strong commitment to various forms of decolonization. In others, they may slip in, but will get very rough feedback if they're open about it. Of course racism can be more low-key and normalized and i've seen my share of that, but that's definitely not welcomed either in most communities. I'm not saying racist communities (racism being part of their identity) don't exist, but i've never seen any one and i'm personally not interested to see one... (though to be fair i'd much rather have them live their dream white patriarchal life in a corner rather than try to impose it on everyone else) It's definitely valid for a commune to recognize as a goal to fight against racism. It can take many forms, but just like any fundamental principle it must be decided early on and approved by consensus in order to become part of the commune's essence if you will. Of course, if you build a so-called apolitical community (such as a property-based housing coop) and don't take a stand, then you're doomed to repeat the same schemes and mistakes we witness everyday around us in society. Of course political communes make mistakes too, but there's always times and venues to address the issues and learn from the mistakes. PS: A consensus is not a majority. One dissenting person can break a consensus, while 45% can fail to break a majority.

tmp538394722 5y ago

If I understand the point you’re trying to make - I appreciate it, but I wonder if you might be talking past each other. Just to be clear, consensus is intentionally very different from a simple majority system - the way that most of the historical racist systems have perpetuated. It’s certainly not impossible for these things to exist in a consensus based environment, but it’s a different beast.

stale2002 5y ago
> Just to be clear, consensus is intentionally very different from a simple majority system Ok call it a consensus then. We as a society, want to make laws, that prevent certain communities from enacting a "consensus" to kick out certain races from where they live.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > We as a society, want to make laws I'm definitely not convinced that laws can protect people from injustice. Rules can if they're consented by everyone (while laws are imposed by a minority of self-serving politicians). In some communes i know, an overtly racist person would not dare to join because there's already established people of color in the community and a strong commitment to various forms of decolonization. In others, they may slip in, but will get very rough feedback if they're open about it. Of course racism can be more low-key and normalized and i've seen my share of that, but that's definitely not welcomed either in most communities. I'm not saying racist communities (racism being part of their identity) don't exist, but i've never seen any one and i'm personally not interested to see one... (though to be fair i'd much rather have them live their dream white patriarchal life in a corner rather than try to impose it on everyone else) It's definitely valid for a commune to recognize as a goal to fight against racism. It can take many forms, but just like any fundamental principle it must be decided early on and approved by consensus in order to become part of the commune's essence if you will. Of course, if you build a so-called apolitical community (such as a property-based housing coop) and don't take a stand, then you're doomed to repeat the same schemes and mistakes we witness everyday around us in society. Of course political communes make mistakes too, but there's always times and venues to address the issues and learn from the mistakes. PS: A consensus is not a majority. One dissenting person can break a consensus, while 45% can fail to break a majority.